Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The Wanderings of the Patriarchs

Parshat Chayei Sarah

This will be a two part post, split into two weeks. In the first week, we'll look at the various wanderings of the patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak, (Isaac) and Yaakov (Jacob), throughout the book of Genesis. We'll focus on the places that they went to, and we'll notice that even though the patriarchs are supposed to represent all Jews, both in the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah, the patriarchs tend to be leave their mark exclusively in sites near the north (Yaakov) or the south (Avraham, Yitzchak), and only travel to the other region for story continuity reasons.  This is a topic we'll pick up next week where we will get more support from this hypothesis from the prophets.

Additionally, we'll discuss some of the reasons that academic scholars think that multiple traditions, or indeed multiple authors, are represented in these stories.  There are multiple stories in which the same patriarch, or a different one, travels to the same place and does the exact same thing, with some slight alterations, and no indication that there ever was someone that did this previously.  We'll also briefly touch on some of the historical anachronisms in the stories, which are indications that they were written much later than traditional thoughts, and represented a world closer to the 1st millenium BCE rather than the 2nd millenium BCE.

When I started researching this topic, I wasn't exactly sure what I would find.  This type of approach, where you are unsure of the answers, and you accept whatever answer the data give, is more in line with a scientific type of thinking.  This is completely different from the theological type of thinking in which the answer is already determined, and the verses are interpreted to support it.  Personally, I find the scientific approach much more satisfying.

All verses, unless otherwise noted, are from Bereishit (Genesis)

Abraham, wanderer of the South

On the fairly poorly made graphic below, I've attempted to plot out the paths of the patriarchs, starting with Avraham in red and continuing with Yitzchak in green, and finally Yaakov in blue. Avraham begins his journey well off the map in Ur Cashdim far in eastern Mesopotamia. He winds up in Haran in the northeast of Israel where God tells him to go into Canaan (12:4). This is the red dashed line on the plot. Avraham passes briefly through Shechem (12:6), and his first encampment is between Beth-el and Ai (12:8).



 Poorly made graphic of the wanderings of the Patriarchs.  Red represents Avraham, Green is Yitzchak, Blue is Yaakov. 

After this Avraham, makes a trip to Egypt because of famine, and we encounter the first story of a patriarch journeying to a different land and telling the ruler that his wife is his sister.  This causes trouble for the ruler who then takes the matriarch as a consort and is punished for it (12:10-19). After Egypt, Avraham returns to the camp between Beth-el and Ai briefly (13:3) where he splits up with Lot. Then Avraham travels to Elonei Mamre which later verses indicate is in Hebron (13:18). This is the home base of Avraham from here on out, and he remains here all the way until Chapter 20.

In 20:1 Avraham travels to the Philistine city of Gerar (an anachronism) and repeats the wife-swapping misadventure with a new king. Avraham dwells somewhere in that land when Yitzchak is born, the place is not indicated. However, 21:33 places him in the vicinity of Be'er-Shebah and a story is given for how that place got its name.

The last adventures of Avraham begin with Akedat Yitzchak, the sacrifice of Isaac, which is not placed explicitly in the Torah, but traditionally occurred in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). As such I've put his path there. Afterwards, Avraham returns to Hevron where he is buried (25:9).

The most important points to note in the travelings of Avraham is that the vast majority of the places he visits are southern locations. He very briefly passes near Shechem, and camps near Beth-el for a short time, but there are no real events that occur there.  Beth-el was a very important city on the border of the two kingdoms, but in the territory of the northern kingdom of Israel. Most of the events of his life occur in the south, in Hevron, Be'er-Shebah, Egypt, and even possibly Yerushalayim. Peripheral events, like the adventures of Lot in S'dom and Amorah (Sodom and Gemorrah) are also southern locations.

The wanderings of Yitzchak

Yitzchak gets the least attention out of the three Patriarchs, and he never leaves the southern areas. He starts at Be'er Lahai Roi (25:11) a place that is somewhere in the Negev, but otherwise not well known. He repeats his father's adventure in Gerar, where he tells the same Philistine king, with the same captain of the guard, that his wife is his sister, and similar bad things occur (26:1-17). Afterwards, Yitzchak digs a bunch of wells in the desert, culminating at Be'er-Shebah (26:33) where Yitzchak seemingly has forgotten that his father named the place in the past, renames it with the same name, but for a different reason! Presumably, Yitzchak settles here, because at this point the focus of the story switches to his son Yaakov.

The wanderings of Yaakov

Yaakov begins his adventures proper when he leaves his childhood home of Be'er Shebah (28:10), traveling to the north, to Aram. He makes a pit stop in Beth-el where he has the famous dream with the ladder (28:11-22) and at this point he names the place Beth-el (28:19). That verse also mentions that the previous name of the place was Luz, which is somewhat confusing, because when his grandfather Avraham passed through, the place was called Beth-el and not Luz.

Nevertheless, Yaakov, reaches Aram, and lives there for 20 years, siring 12 of his 13 children. Yaakov leaves in chapter 31, and has an encounter with Laban somewhere in Gilead, and the Torah gives an explanation for why that area got its name. On his return home, Yaakov has adventures in multiple places mostly on the east side of the Jordan river (transJordan). The first adventure is in Mahanaim where he encounters a bunch of angels and names the place accordingly (32:3). He then has the famous encounter with the angel at Penuel, near Nahal Yabbok. (32:22-32), providing names for both of those places, as well as giving the reason why Yaakov is also known as Yisrael (Israel). Yaakov then travels to Sukkot (33:17) and explains the naming of that place, finally winding up back across the Jordan in Shechem (33:18) where he remains for a while.  He never makes it back to Be'er Sheba.

In 35:1 God tells Yaakov to go to Beth-el. The Torah informs us again that the place was once called Luz (35:6) and Yaakov names it Beth-el a second time, again for a different reason (35:7). Afterwards, (35:9-10) God changes his name to Yisrael, even though it was already changed in the past. The final travels of Yaakov has him going to Beth-lehem, where Rachel is buried (35:19) and then he buries his father in Hevron (35:27-29). Chapter 37 opens with the Torah giving no more specific location of Yaakov than that he was in Canaan. At this point the story shifts to focus on his children, mainly Yosef (Joseph).

If Avraham is the hero of the south, then Yaakov is the hero of the north. He is strongly associated with the city of Beth-el, an extremely important city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Not to mention that he shares his adopted name Yisrael, with that of the northern Israelite kingdom. Other cities like Shechem, and the various locations east of the Jordan river, are in the territories of Israel.

Geographical Associations

Looking at where the patriarchs spent their time, we have Avraham, who starts far in the north, but spends all of his adult years in the south, with his northernmost location near Beth-el. Yitzchak who never leaves the south at all. And Yaakov, who begins far in the south, but spends all of his adult life in the north, before returning to the south in order for the story to connect with that of Yosef which occurs in Egypt. Each one is associated with specific places, Avraham with Hevron, and Be'er Shebah, Yitzchak with Be'er Shebah, and Yaakov with trans-Jordan locations, Shechem, and most importantly, Beth-el. 

From here we have the basic framework of our first hypothesis.  Avraham and Yitzchak, were the patriarchs of the south.  Yaakov was the patriarch of the north.  They were essentially separate stories, but at some point, the two stories merged into one.  A good guess for when this happened was after the northern kingdom was destroyed in 722 BCE, and residents of it fled to the south.  With the merging of the stories, the patriarchs became a single hereditary line: Avraham - Yitzchak - Yaakov. For continuity's sake, they then had to live in the other's territory at the beginning and ends of their lives.  

Based on the data, this is the hypothesis I've come up with.  But in order for it to be believable, it needs support from writings outside the Torah. We'll test the hypothesis next week when we'll look at some supporting information from this from the prophets.  We'll see that the prophets strongly associate Avraham and Yitzchak with the south, and Yaakov with the north. 

Repeated Events (Doublets)

Also, we see that the Torah repeats events. There are three stories of a patriarch trying to pass a wife off as a sister, and bad things happening to the king who is taken by the ruse. It also gives multiple explanations for place names, each one seemingly unfamiliar with previous explanations.  There are two separate explanations for the naming of Be'er Shebah, and similarly, two separate instances for the naming of Beth-el. It is these features that have led academic scholars to hypothesize that these various stories represent different traditions that were later compiled together. A hypothesis called the Documentary Hypothesis which we've already hinted at, but will deal with in more detail throughout the year, goes a step further.  It states that there were actual separate documents that were redacted together and relates these documents to specific historical time periods in different locations. Scholars who aren't comfortable with multiple documents, hypothesize that these stories arose from multiple conflicting oral traditions that existed at the time that the author was writing the Torah, and that author wished to incorporate as many of the conflicting oral traditions as possible. Either way, the presence of these duplicated events create huge problems for traditional readings, and traditional explanations require tortured readings of the text.

Anachronisms

One of the most glaring anachronisms in the Patriarchal stories is the presence of the Pelishtim (Philistines).  Both Avraham and Yitzchak visit the lands of the Pelishtim, and live there for several years.  They also feud over territory in the south, in the vicinity of Beer-Shebah.  In later years, Pelishtim were rivals of both kingdoms throughout the monarchial period.  They controlled the coasts, including lucrative trade routes, and fertile lands by the Mediterranean, while the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were relegated more to the inner highlands.  However, the Pelishtim were not always there.

In the beginning of the 12th century BCE, the "sea peoples" arrived and destroyed many lands.  They were responsible for the destruction of Ugarit in the north.  And they also took control of the coastal regions from the Egyptians, who then retreated back to Egypt.  Before the arrival of the Sea Peoples, Egypt controlled all of Canaan.  After this, the "sea peoples" settled in the cities and built new ones.  Their arrival is attested archaeologically by the destruction of various cities, and the presence of new Aegean pottery which was found starting at this time at key cities of the Pelishtim.  Furthermore, Rameses III mentioned the Pelishtim as one of the Sea Peoples [1].  So we are pretty certain that the Sea Peoples included the Pelishtim, and thus, the Pelishtim could not have been in Israel before 1200 BCE.  Therefore, these stories must have been written much later, after all memories of the arrival of the Pelishtim were forgotten.  [2]
The city of Gerar as the capital of the Pelishtim, is even more problematic. 
Quoting Finkelstein/Silberman,"Gerar is today identified with Tel Haror northwest of Beersheba, and excavtions there have shown that in the Iron Age I [~1200 - 900 BCE] - the early phase of Philistine history - it was no more than a small insignificant village.  But by the late eighth and seventh century BCE, it had become a strong, heavily fortified Assyrian administrative stronghold in the south, an obvious landmark. [3]" 

And on the choice of cities that the Patriarchs visited, they say the following:
"The Middle Bronze [~2000-1500 BCE, a traditional dating for the Patriarchs] was a period of advanced urban life.  Canaan was dominated by a group of powerful city-states, ruled from such capitals as Hazor and Megiddo.  These cities were strongly fortified by huge earthen ramparts with massive gates.  They had great palaces and towering temples.  But in the biblical text we do not see this at all.  True, a few cities are mentioned, but not necessarily the most important ones.  Shechem (as a city) is not there, nor are Bethel and Jerusalem - all three were massive Middle Bronze strongholds.  And in the plains we should have heard about Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, not Gerar.  The biblical story of the patriarchs is clearly not the story of Middle Bronze Canaan. [4]"

Now, some caution is in order when dealing with specific dates, as Finkelstein's proposed dating system is not universally agreed on.  However, the disagreement usually run in the order of about 100 years, and we're talking about discrepancies of over 500.  The conclusion is inescapable.  The authors of these stories were living in a time much later than the supposed events, and did not know what the land looked like at the distant past time period in which they chose for the setting.  Rather they placed them a mythical nomadic past, which may have been accurate at some points in the history of Canaan, but not at the time they chose! 

Ok, that's enough for this week.  Next week we'll look at what the Nevi'im have to say about the patriarchs




1. Redford, "Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times" Princeton Univ. Press, 1992, p. 246. ^

2. For more on this see Finkelstein and Silberman, "The Bible Unearthed," Simon and Schuster, 2001, p.86-90. ^

3. Ibid. p. 38.^

4. Ibid. p. 323.^

15 comments:

  1. Another excellent article. Even as a youngster I was perplexed - why would God's book to mankind spill all this ink on the reason for names of places or the reason for people's names etc: Later I learned this sort of thing is common in the myths of many cultures. The work you are doing is important so keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Philistines isn't an anachronism. There were two groups of Philistines, the first which went away by the time of Moses (according to some sources). See, Chullin 60b, Midrash Shocher Tov perek 60, Rashi and Ramban (toward the end of his long piece) in Devarim perek 2. Kitchen also points out the anachronistic claim that Philistines is an anachronism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The name 'paleshet" doesn't show up until much later, until the arrival of the sea peoples. The central city of the empire was not Gerar until much later. If the Torah was referring to an earlier people, it would have given it the name of the earlier people (which we know from the Amarna letters). Kitchen is alone here (as he often is) and frankly I don't find his arguments to have much merit in this regard. But by all means, if you think they are worth describing here, feel free to do so. We can then judge it openly.

      You can certainly try to contort the history of the Torah so that it aligns with what we know from other historical sources, just like you can contort the 7 days of creation to align with what we know from biology. But what's the point? What have you gained? If the only way to interpret the Torah is after science has informed us of what reality is, what use is the Torah?

      Delete
  3. 1) I don't try to contort the Torah to fit science. All I am saying is that various classical sources agree (though, I admit, not all) -- Talmud, Midrash, Rashi and Ramban -- that the Philistines of Avraham's time weren't the same people as the Philistines that arrived around the time of Moshe, which David and Solomon fought against.

    The Ramban explains that since they lived in the area Palashes the Torah calls its inhabitants all Pelishtim. Kitchens analogizes this to stating "the Dutch founded New York." Of course, the Dutch founded New Amsterdam, but since it is now New York it isn't anachronistic to claim that the Dutch founded New York, or to say Avraham dealt with the Philistines.

    Indeed, the Bible claims to know who the Philistines and that they aren't recent arrivals from another coastal area (presumably an island): Jeremiah 47:4, Amos 9:7.

    2) Regarding science, I do admit that I am a young-earth creationist, since I trust the Torah's description over scientific theories which, as any student of the history of science can tell you, are fallible (See Genesis and Genes, especially the last chapter). There are other ways to answer the contradiction between science and Torah, such as claiming that the Torah's description of ancient history was allegorical (we weren't there as a nation, so we have to trust Hashem's description, which may have been allegorical), or it possible that God doesn't leave scientific evidence for his miracles, in order to hide his presence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) The people who lived there did not call themselves Pelishtim. The *name* is anachronistic (as is Gerar). Yes there were people there, no they did not refer to themselves as anachronistic. If you said the Dutch founded New York you would be wrong.

      I'm not at all opposed to some biblical authors correctly knowing that the Philistines arrived from the sea. However, it doesn't appear to me that whoever authored these stories about Avraham and Yitzchak knew that, or if they did know it, they thought it was further in the past.

      2) This isn't quite the correct venue to discuss creationism. I used it as an example, because IMO if you disagree with the scientific conclusions regarding evolution and the history of the earth, you have much more serious problems with science that comparatively subtler archaeological arguments are pointless to discuss. As for the alternate views of Genesis (allegorical) I've discussed them in my October 7th post.

      Delete
  4. I meant to type are (rather than aren't) in the third paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The point is that it isn't anachronistic to claim, for example, that "around 16,500 years ago, the glaciers began melting, allowing Native Americans to move south and east into Canada and beyond" despite the fact that Amerigo Vespuchi and Cartier didn't arrive in the Americas much later. The fact that Native Americans called themselves something else isn't relevant. Similarly, the ancient inhabitants of what in what is "NOW" known as Palashes and Gerar can be referred to as Pelishtim who live in Gerar. And this isn't defensive hairsplitting. We knew who the Pelishtim were before "modern" archaeology.

    But what you wrote raises a serious problem for the skeptic, one which we elaborate on once we discuss Kuzari argument. If, as you suggest, at least some biblical authors knew the ancient history of the Pelishtim -- both their recent arrival and their starting point -- why should we assume that their own history became so horribly corrupted?

    True, this fact alone isn't sufficient, but as we will discuss later there are many ancient facts which have been confirmed, and one which I will not let you ignore. These facts add additional strength (not that it needs it) to the Kuzari argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people weren't Plishtim and their capital city wasn't Gerar (both the name and location is wrong on that one). The Torah in many places describes people who previously inhabited a place and were conquered by another. Never does it identify the previous people with the same people. See Devarim 2 for example.

      "If, as you suggest, at least some biblical authors knew the ancient history of the Pelishtim -- both their recent arrival and their starting point -- why should we assume that their own history became so horribly corrupted?"

      Because we can read the text itself and see that it had become corrupted. If some people think the Philistines were always there, and some think they arrived, one must be wrong. You are employing the "single author assumption" in which you assume that all the biblical texts are written by the same author or at least guiding force. This is not supported.

      Delete
  6. How do you know that the location of the ancient people who live in WHAT IS NOW CALLED PALASHES is wrong? We don't even know where ancient Gerar is! https://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&pg=PA326&dq=gerar&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwiXq8mksMfIAhXJdh4KHUThDOc#v=onepage&q=gerar&f=false

    The ancient commentators understood that the Pelishtim of David's age weren't the same people as the Pelishtim of Avraham's days. So your point, that the Bible is obviously confused, is incorrect.

    Regarding your second point, the fact that a text became corrupt (which it didn't, but even if it did) doesn't contradict my point. However, I will explain my point when we go into detail regarding the Kuzari argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "How do you know that the location of the ancient people who live in WHAT IS NOW CALLED PALASHES is wrong?"

      The Amarna letters.

      "The ancient commentators understood that the Pelishtim of David's age weren't the same people as the Pelishtim of Avraham's days."

      They didn't "know" this. Some suggested it as a way to harmonize contradictory accounts. That is not the same thing.

      "Regarding your second point, the fact that a text became corrupt (which it didn't, but even if it did) "

      I didn't say the text became corrupt.

      Delete
  7. How do the Amarna letters prove that Kitchen's (and the Ramban's) conclusion -- that the Jews in Moshe's time called the ancient inhabitants Philistines because the site was known to the Jews as Palashes -- is erroneous. Please be specific.

    The point is that if your goal is to contradict Talmudic Judaism, you haven't done your job. Many sources, for various reasons, concluded that the Philistines of Avraham's time that lived in Gerar weren't the Philistines that were sea people (indeed, Dagan, their Fish God, isn't mentioned when discussing Avraham). One reason, offered by the Midrash Shocher Tov, is that David wouldn't have attacked the early Philistines because of the pact between Avraham and Avimelech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Amarna letters tell us the names of the people who were living in the region at the period and where their major cities where. They were not Paleshet and they did not live in Gerar. That is sufficient for anyone.

      It is amazing to me what you consider as supporting evidence and what you're willing to throw out for contradictory evidence. But that's of no matter to me. Anyone can judge the merits of the argument on their own weight.

      Delete
  8. 1) The Amarna letters might not use the term Palashes, but how does that imply that they didn't use another term to refer to the inhabitants of present-day Gaza?

    2) The Amarna letters were written before the traditional date for yetzias mitzrayim. Thus, how do you know that the word Palashes didn't develop soon after those letters were written, and thus the Torah properly uses that term (Indeed, Ramses III uses the term Palashes despite the fact that the Amarna letters does not. So obviously things change)?

    3) Most importantly, how can you possibly try to contradict the Torah by the mere fact that the letters don't talk about the Philistines and Gerar (the latter might have been a small villiage)? Why not just assume that the letters aren't exhaustive. I might not fully understand your point, but the little I understand your argument seems woefully weak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) They do use a different term for the inhabitants of present day Gaza. That's exactly the point.

      2) Depends on what "traditional" date you use. Regardless, the world of the Amarna letters don't coincide with any period in the biblical account. This is a problem.

      3) In the Torah, Gerar is the current abode of the Philistine king. It's exactly where you would expect the correspondence to go to.

      " I might not fully understand your point, but the little I understand your argument seems woefully weak."

      All arguments will seem weak to you because you are approaching them all with the assumption that the Torah is a true account and therefore every other piece of information must bend to fit inside. Therefore, you search for unlikely scenarios to shoehorn what we know of history into the Torah's chronology (For example: the Torah is referring to a different people as Philistines even though it doesn't do this in other places, and Gerar is a small village, even though the Philistine king just happens to be there when Avraham and Yitzchak stroll through).

      Mathematically speaking, you put a Bayesian prior on the veracity of the Torah at 100%. This skews the probabilities of various "interpretations" so that the most likely ones, to you, are ones that do not contradict the Torah. However, if you reduce the Bayesian prior even just a little, as you really must do if you are actually interested in discovering whether the Torah is true, then all the explanations I put forward jump to the top of the probability.This is why the entirety of Academia does not think the Patriarchal accounts are historical.

      Delete
  9. I am looking at the totality of the evidence. The evidence that the Torah was written during the time of Moshe are stronger than your arguments, in my opinion.

    Here, e.g., is a good argument against the argument that the early Philistines are anachronistic (see link below). The point is that, EVEN IF we determine that the "Philistines" that Avraham met weren't called Philistines (and I'm not convinced that this is the case), that's no reason to assume that Moshe wouldn't refer to them as Philistines DESPITE BEING AWARE THAT THEY AREN'T THE SAME GROUP. Furthermore, when reading the patriarchal accounts, where do you get the idea that Gerar is a major city, to the point that the Amarna letters MUST refer to it? Finally, just because the Egyptians changed that way they called the inhabitants of Gaza, why does that force us to conclude that the Jews changed the way they referred to them. The evidence seems quite speculative. You don't have nearly enough to contradict Kitchen's point. In fact, the discussion of the Philistines actually shows how un-anachronistic the Torah is, clearly contrasting the mores of the earlier to the later Philistines. The earlier, for example, have a central king. The later have many Saranim (see link below).

    https://books.google.com/books?id=BWmBUBre55QC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22The+early+%22philistines%22+of+the+patriarchal+period+are+peaceful%22&source=bl&ots=UoLGUfVpVW&sig=EHTGfScH1KsCJxxS94_tjeSGv3M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIrsjmq_DMyAIVRRo-Ch3ufQoT#v=onepage&q=%22The%20early%20%22philistines%22%20of%20the%20patriarchal%20period%20are%20peaceful%22&f=false

    ReplyDelete